The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State, Part II - Dr. Alex Grobman

by Dr. Alex Grobman

There are two opposing opinions about recognition of Israel's right to exist.

Israeli Response Many
in Israel assert the country’s existence as “the” Jewish state is a
given and not open to consideration. Others question why Israel needs
acknowledgement from anyone.

No Need for RecognitionYehuda
Avner, personal secretary and speechwriter for five Israeli prime
ministers, asserts that Menachem Begin, Israel’s sixth prime minister,
strenuously objected to the notion that Israel’s right to exist “has to
be sanctioned for political purposes by an intrinsically anti-Semitic,
murderous Palestinian Arab terrorist organization? Have you lost your
Jewish self-respect,” he asked. “Where is your Jewish memory?" (Yehuda
Avner, “Israel does not need Palestinian recognition,” The Jerusalem
Post, June 14, 2006).

When Begin became prime minster in 1997, an
Englishman with a “perfectly pitched BBC announcer's voice” enquired
whether Begin looked forward to the day when the Palestinian Arabs would
recognize Israel’s right to exist. Begin’s “jaw tightened,” but he
calmly responded, "Traditionally, there are four major criteria of
statehood under international law. One - an effective and independent
government. Two - an effective and independent control of the
population. Three - a defined territory. And four - the capacity to
freely engage in foreign relations. Israel is in possession of all four
attributes and, hence, is a fully fledged sovereign state and a fully
accredited member of the United Nations.” (Ibid.)

The Englishman then asked whether Begin would require the Palestinian Arab leadership to recognize Israel as a sine qua non
for negotiations. “Certainly not!” Begin affirmed. “Those so-called
relevant organizations are gangs of murderers bent on destroying the
State of Israel. We will never conduct talks about our own
destruction." What if they were to recognize Israel's existence, the
fellow persisted, “would you then negotiate with them?" "No, sir!" "Why
not?" "Because I don't need Palestinian recognition for my right to
exist."Begin:
Would it enter the mind of any Briton or Frenchman, Belgian or
Dutchman, Hungarian or Bulgarian, Russian or American, to request for
its people recognition of its right to exist?

Standing
before the Knesset two hours later on his first day in office and after
this caustic exchange, Begin began discussing Israel's right to exist.
"Our right to exist - have you ever heard of such a thing?" he declared.
"Would it enter the mind of any Briton or Frenchman, Belgian or
Dutchman, Hungarian or Bulgarian, Russian or American, to request for
its people recognition of its right to exist?"

Glaring at his
audience and shaking his finger, he quieted every voice in the Knesset
chamber. "Mr. Speaker: We were granted our right to exist by the God of
our fathers at the glimmer of the dawn of human civilization four
thousand years ago. Hence, the Jewish people have an historic, eternal
and inalienable right to exist in this land, Eretz Yisrael, the land of
our forefathers. We need nobody's recognition in asserting this
inalienable right. And for this inalienable right, which has been
sanctified in Jewish blood from generation to generation, we have paid a
price unexampled in the annals of nations." Then he stood on his toes
and in a thunderous voice proclaimed, "Mr. Speaker: From the Knesset of
Israel, I say to the world, our very existence per se is our right to exist!"

As
the meeting with President Jimmy Carter in the White House came to a
close three weeks later, the president handed the prime minister the
formal communique of their meeting. After Begin read the document he
asked that the sentence, “The United States affirms Israel's inherent
right to exist” be removed. Carter said "It would be incompatible with
my responsibilities as president of the United States were I to omit
this commitment to your country, since this public pledge had been a
request of every other former Israeli prime minister."

Begin
thanked the president and explained he wanted the sentence deleted
"Because our Jewish state needs no American affirmation of our right to
exist. Our Hebrew Bible established that right millennia ago. Never,
throughout the centuries, did we ever abandon or forfeit that right.
Therefore, sir, we alone, the Jewish people - no one else - are
responsible for our country's right to exist.” (Ibid.)

Abba Eban
viewed the issue similarly: “Nobody does Israel any service by
proclaiming its ‘right to exist.’ It is disturbing to find so many
people right well-disposed to Israel giving currency to this
contemptuous formulation. Israel's right to exist, like that of the
United States, Saudi Arabia, and 152 other states, is axiomatic and
unreserved. Israel's legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting
acknowledgement by the royal house in Riyadh. Nor does a group such as
the Palestine Liberation Organization have any juridical competence to
accord recognition to states, or withhold it. (Abba Eban, “The Saudi
Text,” The New York Times, November 18, 1981).

Former Israeli
Finance Minister Yair Lapid agreed with Eban. "I don't feel we need a
declaration from the Palestinians that they recognize Israel as a Jewish
state,” he told Charlie Rose on Bloomberg Television. “My
father didn't come to Haifa from the Budapest ghetto in order to get
recognition from Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas)," Lapid said he sees the
State of Israel as a place where Jews are able to define themselves,
after 2,000 years in exile.” (Jonathan Lis, "We are now independent and
make our own rules," Haaretz, October 9, 2013) [1]

An Opposing Israeli View As
part of remarks observing the 96th anniversary of the Balfour
Declaration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reiterated the
significance of international recognition of Israel as a Jewish state to
help bring peace to the Middle East. “There is no doubt that the
international recognition of the right to a Jewish homeland and its
historical significance is fundamental. Its refusal is the root of
conflict" in the region. (Tova Dvorin, “PM: PA Refusal of Jewish State
is Root of Conflict,” Israel National News, (November 3, 2013).Netanyahu
urged the Arabs to “Recognize the Jewish state. As long as you refuse
to do so, there will never be peace. Recognize our right to live here in
our own sovereign state, our nation state – only then will peace be
possible.” (“Full text of Netanyahu’s speech at Bar-Ilan,” The Times of
Israel (October 7, 2013).

Arab attempts to influence world
opinion against Israel through the media and U.N. declarations mean
little when the final decision makers are the Israelis. In a speech to
the Knesset on December 6, 2007 commemorating November 29, 1947, the day
the U.N. voted to partition Palestine, Netanyahu, then the leader of
the opposition, placed Palestinian Arab recognition of Israel in
perspective. “Our existence,” he said, “does not depend on the
willingness of the Palestinians to make peace with us. Our existence is
secured by our right to live in this land and our capacity to defend
that right.” He had no illusions that “Our enemies do not want an Arab
state next to Israel. They want an Arab state instead of Israel.”

“The
key to Israel's existence,” he continued, “has always been rooted in
strengthening Zionism and our ability to defend ourselves - and this
remains the key to our existence and the key to forging a genuine peace
with all our Arab neighbors. Only when some of them recognized Israel's
permanence and indestructibility did they reconcile themselves to making
peace with us. That is why I was shocked to hear in the press that the
Prime Minister, [then Ehud Olmert,] said: 'If there will not be two
states, Israel is finished.' Mr. Prime Minister: The State of Israel
will never be finished! Our fate will be determined by us, and us
alone!”For Israeli historian Jacob Talmon, the reason this issue
consumes so much debate among Jews is that “deep down in the Jewish soul
there is the conscious or unconscious tremendous Jewish anxiety to do
away with that which has plagued their existence for two thousand years
in the diaspora—the lack of simple, unreserved recognition of their
right to exist as a right, and not on sufferance.” Wasn’t this “the
essence of Zionism the deep longing to be a nation unto the nations in
the family of nations? Nothing could therefore be more galling and
frustrating than the fact that Israel was the only State in the world to
which its neighbors refused the very right to exist, and whose
frontiers were hermetically closed even when they were not ablaze.”
(Jacob Talmon, Israel Among the Nations, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson1970, p.171.)

Israeli
journalist Dror Eydar claims the demand for recognizing a Jewish state
is not intended for Israel, since she does not need recognition from
Ramallah. The demand is designed to impede the “PLO's progressive
tactic in which each territory it receives serves as the base for the
next demand.” And recognition is needed so that Israel’s existence is
not just a meaningless slogan. It must be reflected in the way Israel is
accepted in the Palestinian Arab media, schools and mosques. This
recognition “is non-negotiable.” Unless it is granted, the status quo
should remain. The alleged risk that without a diplomatic accord
Israel's position will deteriorate has been advanced for a hundred
years, and has been proven wrong. “Don’t try to scare us,” Eydar warns.
“We have managed all right so far.” (Dror Eydar, “The debate is about
our right to exist,” Israel Hayom, March 16, 2014). [2]

Recognition
is the only means to ensure that the conflict is actually over—that the
settlement is not another disastrous fiasco like Oslo. adds historian
David Hazony. It is not about psychological insecurity. Recognition has
to be “categorical, overriding” without ‘Yes, but also right of return,’
or, ‘Yes, but also right to resistance.’ Anything short of that is just
more posturing, more blood and tears.” (David Hazony, “Why Recognizing
Israel as 'Jewish State' Is Key to Peace,” Forward, March 21, 2014).

In
his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
Foreign Affairs on March 13, 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry added
to the discussion by presenting Israel’s fundamental requirement of
recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish People “as a
mistake.” Considering that the “Jewish State” issue was “sufficiently
addressed by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947, which
recommended the establishment of independent Arab and Jewish states in
Palestine,” he did not see why this declaration is necessary.
Furthermore, Kerry noted that there are “more than 30–40 mentions of a
‘Jewish state’” in the resolution, and added that the late Palestinian
leader Yasser Arafat “confirmed that he agreed it [Israel] would be a
Jewish state” in 1988 and in 2004.” (Alan Baker, “Arafat and the Jewish
State: Setting the Record Straight,” Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs, March 17, 2014).

Ambassador Alan Baker, who served as
legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel's Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Israel's ambassador to Canada and participated in
the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords, responded that “this
It would appear that once again, as with previous one-sided and
pre-judgmental statements, Secretary Kerry has either been ill-advised
or is deliberately engaged in an effort to neutralize the ‘Jewish State’
issue in the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians,”
by quoting a dubious quotation by Yasser Arafat from December 7, 1988 –
in which Arafat said that 'the PNC [Palestinian National Council] has
accepted two states: a Palestine state and Jewish state – between
brackets ‘Israel.’” (Sic). (Ibid.)

Israel, the U.S., the United
Kingdom, Germany and other nations never accepted this 1988 statement as
satisfying the current demand for recognition. When Arafat made the
declaration, he summarized U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 that
specified a legal foundation for the Palestinian Arab state, which the
U.S. determined did not meet its requirement that the PLO unequivocally
recognize the State of Israel, and consequently no discussion was
initiated between the U.S. and the PLO at that point. The U.S. also
rejected subsequent statements by Arafat that failed to meet this
condition. Baker concludes that “Secretary Kerry’s attempt to represent
these events as proof that the Palestinian leadership has already
recognized Israel as the Jewish state is a clear distortion of the
historical record.” (Ibid.)

Farouk Kaddoumi, the PLO's "foreign
minister” under Arafat, confirmed that the PLO charter had not been
changed to recognize Israel's right to exist in an interview with the
Jordanian newspaper Al-Arab. "The Palestinian national charter
has not been amended until now," he explained. "It was said that some
articles are no longer effective, but they were not changed. I'm one of
those who didn't agree to any changes." (Khaled Abu Toameh, “Kaddoumi:
PLO charter was never changed,” The Jerusalem Post, April 22, 2004).For the strategy behind the Arab position, see part III tomorrow.